|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Anti-MFrom: robert berg (robert.berg@nyu.edu)Thu Mar 27 20:15:03 2008
In *European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology*, *Volume 92, Issue 1*, *September 2000*, *Pages 75-81* Moise mentions 6 (not 1, sorry) of severe disease reported in the English literature; the same article references the following:
Anti-M Isoimmunization: Management and Outcome at The Ohio State University
>From 1969 to 1995 Anna de Young-Owens, Melanie Kennedy, Robin Lee Rose, Jeffrey Boyle and Richard O'Shaughnessy * Received 11 April 1997; revised 10 July 1997; accepted 31 July 1997. Available online 3 February 1998. Abstract *Objective: To review the management strategies and outcome in gravidas with anti-M isoimmunization over the past 26 years at The Ohio State University.* *Methods: Data collected from 115 pregnancies found to have anti-M antibody at The Ohio State University from September 1969 through February 1996 were reviewed retrospectively. We analyzed indirect antiglobulin tests, amniotic fluid with spectrophotometric examination, direct antiglobulin tests, M antigen status, antepartum course, and perinatal outcome.* *Results: Anti-M antibody was found in 90 women who had 115 pregnancies over 26 years. Among those with positive indirect antiglobulin tests, 104 pregnancies had titers at or below 1:4. Only one patient with an initial low titer experienced more than a three-fold increase to 1:64. Two women underwent a total of eight amniocenteses when titers were at or above 1:128. Forty-two (60%) of the 70 infants tested were positive for M antigen. Nine infants required phototherapy. Eight of these infants were delivered preterm. There was an increase in the number of women seen with anti-M antibody in pregnancy at our institution, with nearly 10% of all gravidas with a positive antibody screen having anti-M alloantibodies. There were no cases of hemolytic disease of the newborn, mild or severe.* *Conclusion: The prevalence of anti-M isoimmunization may be increasing. The incidence of severe hemolytic disease of the newborn due to anti-M is extremely low. We found no cases in our review of 115 pregnancies, although there have been several cases of severe hemolytic disease of the newborn reported. If anti-M is detected in pregnancy, the titer is low (no more than 1:4), and there is no history of prior pregnancy complications suggesting a hemolytic disease process, we recommend no further testing other than an indirect antiglobulin test at 28 weeks to look for the emergence of other alloantibodies. However, if the initial titer is elevated or there is a concerning obstetric history, serial titers should be performed and amniocenteses reserved for rising titers.* On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Glen Elrod <dr99645@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thats odd. Williams has a big table and it says hemolytic disease is
>> ----- Original Message ----
-- __________________________________ Robert E. Berg, MD, FACOG, FACS __________________________________ And this affects me, how?
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Jul 2 04:49:05 2008 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.